There were numerous assassination attempts against Hitler. Mussolini was hung by his own people.

|111th| tSwopCaml wrote: Ronnie. Sorry. My reference was to the japanese leadership not the japanese themselves. My views are based on the facts. The independent studies upon study show it saved lives. You mentioned germans desired regime change at end of wwii. That is not true. It took hitler dying and Mussolini to die and for allied ground forces to take over the axis in Europe for the Surrender to even begin. If germany and Italy accepted unconditional surrender it could have ended earlier as well but hitler desired to fight till the last man until he physically died. This is what would have had to take place in japan if otherwise.

Operation Valkyrie was an attempted coup against Hitler. A group of disillusioned German officers gave their lives in an attempt to stop hitler from destroying their country. A bomb was placed I'm his conference room and detonated, wounding him, but not killing him. After the blast, the conspirators tried to seize control of the government, and succeeded for several hours until it was confirmed that Hitler was alive. The conspirators were executed and lauded as heros posthumously after the war. The German people did desire regime change, but feared Hitler because of his willingness to execute his own people for any reason.the war in Europe could have ended as much as a year and a half sooner had operation valkyrie succeeded.

LOL!!!, NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT!!!!???? HMMMMMMM.......JUST WORRIED THAT THAT MIGHT HURT!!!, LMAO

But the fact remains they fought till last man until hitler killed himself. There were isolated incidents of assassination attempts. But they were from the minority of the leadership of Germany. Mussolini was assassinated once it looked like the allies were going to overtake italy.

HD,

I hear everything you're saying. I think we are disagreeing just on Hirohito. Yes, the sum total documentation makes it highly possible, highly plausible, and perhaps proven to some, that he would have surrendered. I don't know. I hear so many first-hand accounts of the terrible things done by his forces through occupation. Most people think "oh they just created military bases and pressured over even toppled some governments." Yes, the bombs caused horrific destruction, death, and suffering. To many. But his empire, under his rule (and others with him), caused horrific destruction, death, and suffering all through the region. Dozens of countries.

Anyone who is capable of leading a country to do THAT, can only be trusted to follow their vision even when the odds are clearly stacked against them. The assumptions that he would have surrendered are assuming that (a) he thought logically, (b) he wasn't suicidal (personally or nationally), (c) he had reasonable thinking about the outcomes. Anyone capable of those atrocities is not logical, balanced in thinking, or reasonable. When up against such adversaries, a focus on results requires some overkill. Hence the bombs.

Yes, absolutely, there were so many other reasons that the U.S. chose to use the bombs. I'm not debating that. In fact, those facts piss me off because they cloud the issue. They allow people to think that, absent of the politics, the bombs were not necessary. I believe that, absent of the politics, the bombs were the only way to give high odds to the end of the war.

Whether it's oil, money, balances of power, Monica Lewinsky, or recovering the Party, our participation in war will always be tainted. Blame the way the system works in an elected democratic republic with campaign contributions. Blame the media and their whoring to ratings. Blame the voters and their lack of education and thinking. But it's what we've got, and it always taints decisions, including decisions in war. I'm merely removing myself from that sucky dynamic, and where I stand is that I barely care whether Hirohito would have surrendered anyway, but even if I did, it needed to be done, to make sure it ended.

By the way, for everyone counting, most numbers don't count the number of people killed, injured, and tortured under occupation. Add a few more months to the calendar, and those numbers would have been big. In fact, a more immediate response would have helped all those folks.

Good thoughts, all around. And guys, take it easy on each other. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that someone's a turd.

Manfred

|111th| tSwopCaml wrote: But the fact remains they fought till last man until hitler killed himself. There were isolated incidents of assassination attempts. But they were from the minority of the leadership of Germany. Mussolini was assassinated once it looked like the allies were going to overtake italy.

But you can't dismiss those assassination attempts swop. While they were few and isolated, they point to the overall will of the German people at the time. Though the assassination attempts failed, they involved people from all walks of life who got close enough to Hitler and took their shot believing that they would be dead anyway if they didn't. That coupled with the actions of the resistance which existed everywhere in Europe at the time proves that what happened was a result of the actions of a madman and not the people overall. The German army fought to the last man because they believed their commanders would shoot them on the spot if they tried to surrender. Again, if we follow another "what if" scenario the war could have ended sooner than it did.

Manfred wrote: HD,

I hear everything you're saying. I think we are disagreeing just on Hirohito. Yes, the sum total documentation makes it highly possible, highly plausible, and perhaps proven to some, that he would have surrendered. I don't know. I hear so many first-hand accounts of the terrible things done by his forces through occupation. Most people think "oh they just created military bases and pressured over even toppled some governments." Yes, the bombs caused horrific destruction, death, and suffering. To many. But his empire, under his rule (and others with him), caused horrific destruction, death, and suffering all through the region. Dozens of countries.

Anyone who is capable of leading a country to do THAT, can only be trusted to follow their vision even when the odds are clearly stacked against them. The assumptions that he would have surrendered are assuming that (a) he thought logically, (b) he wasn't suicidal (personally or nationally), (c) he had reasonable thinking about the outcomes. Anyone capable of those atrocities is not logical, balanced in thinking, or reasonable. When up against such adversaries, a focus on results requires some overkill. Hence the bombs.

Yes, absolutely, there were so many other reasons that the U.S. chose to use the bombs. I'm not debating that. In fact, those facts piss me off because they cloud the issue. They allow people to think that, absent of the politics, the bombs were not necessary. I believe that, absent of the politics, the bombs were the only way to give high odds to the end of the war.

Whether it's oil, money, balances of power, Monica Lewinsky, or recovering the Party, our participation in war will always be tainted. Blame the way the system works in an elected democratic republic with campaign contributions. Blame the media and their whoring to ratings. Blame the voters and their lack of education and thinking. But it's what we've got, and it always taints decisions, including decisions in war. I'm merely removing myself from that sucky dynamic, and where I stand is that I barely care whether Hirohito would have surrendered anyway, but even if I did, it needed to be done, to make sure it ended.

By the way, for everyone counting, most numbers don't count the number of people killed, injured, and tortured under occupation. Add a few more months to the calendar, and those numbers would have been big. In fact, a more immediate response would have helped all those folks.

Good thoughts, all around. And guys, take it easy on each other. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that someone's a turd.

Manfred

Manny, with regard to hirohito's frame of mind, i think the opposite of what you said is true. As i mentioned earlier, I'm not releasing him from liability for the atrocities that occurred but i don't think he ordered those atrocities. And while i doubt that he was unaware that they were happening, at the time he needed every soldier at his disposal and couldn't afford to lose a good portion of his manpower by removing those who did commit the atrocities. This i think sets him apart from the other axis dictators who did order such atrocities. I think he was rational and logical, and that he was not suicidal at all. He was a man who had many tough choices to make and i think that in the end, he was caught between a rock and a hard place.

I don't draw much distinction between those who allow versus those who drive. While I agree that consideration of what's in a man's head is important, I weigh much more importance in the message that a counter-action sends. The world saw terror, and the resulting disintegration of two cities and their populations.

This is just an extension, but if much of the atrocity was being done without Hirohito's order, then I think that argues EVEN MORE for overkill response. Playing diplomacy and relying on Russia's threat to cause his surrender would have been measurably less than 100% certainty, AND even if he did surrender without the bombs, the atrocities would have continued. They did anyway even with the bombs, but gosh what would have been their extent without them?

Again, just to be clear on my position on the other factors, the fact that the U.S. did it for a whole host of other reasons doesn't discount the primary reason (MY primary reason, anyway) that it was needed and righteous. Those other motivations just dilute the justification, and shares the evil-doing around.

BTW Swop, I don't think HD is in the business of defending mass murderers. I see HD's point as defending the very freedom that we fight for, by not exercising military might unnecessarily and removing freedom from others. This, to me, is a discussion of balance, of cause and result, and of the possible justification of overkill. I disagree with HD, but not for the reasons you do.

Manfred

Im not dismissing the assassination attempts. The whole discussion is in reference to the leaders and their desire to fight to last man without any interest in unconditional surrender. I believe the us was just and the other reasons dont diminish the correctness of the american decision in WWII.

I agree with manny ur second paragraph of most recent reply. HD doesnt see that america saved lives in its reaction. And that if the japanese government would have accepted unconditional surrender. No bombs would have been needed and no land invasion as well. America was prepared for every contingency. I wish that the bombs werent necessary but the fact remains it was and the response
saved lives.

I believe the us was Just in its decision. America didnt wheel military might unecessarily or remove freedom of others. If you see Americas post-wwii response you can see japan germany Italy and others HELPED to promote their freedom to the point that these nations are a total success. No winning nation before in war has done what the us has done to promote freedom in the world. Instead of being harsh with those nations they conquered the helped rebuild their nations to what they are today. This would not have happened if either unconditional surrender would have been accepted so no bombs done or how it actually happened with the bombs.

What is great is to see an amazing vibrant and free nations of germany japan italy etc. i appreciate what america and the allies did to help in that regard.

|111th| tSwopCaml wrote: Im not dismissing the assassination attempts. The whole discussion is in reference to the leaders and their desire to fight to last man without any interest in unconditional surrender. I believe the us was just and the other reasons dont diminish the correctness of the american decision in WWII.

I agree with manny ur second paragraph of most recent reply. HD doesnt see that america saved lives in its reaction. And that if the japanese government would have accepted unconditional surrender. No bombs would have been needed and no land invasion as well. America was prepared for every contingency. I wish that the bombs werent necessary but the fact remains it was and the response
saved lives.

I believe the us was Just in its decision. America didnt wheel military might unecessarily or remove freedom of others. If you see Americas post-wwii response you can see japan germany Italy and others HELPED to promote their freedom to the point that these nations are a total success. No winning nation before in war has done what the us has done to promote freedom in the world. Instead of being harsh with those nations they conquered the helped rebuild their nations to what they are today. This would not have happened if either unconditional surrender would have been accepted so no bombs done or how it actually happened with the bombs.

What is great is to see an amazing vibrant and free nations of germany japan italy etc. i appreciate what america and the allies did to help in that regard.

I'm sorry swop but we may have to agree to disagree here. I fail to see how the use of two weapons of mass destruction balances the scales. It's impossible for any of us to really truly know how many lives were actually spared vs the lives those bombs cost. Sure, we have the estimates, but realistically those numbers are what i like to call swag: scientific wild ass guesses. In the end, i believe the same result could have been achieved without the use of nuclear weapons. And while America did rebuild the countries of the former axis powers to what they are today,i still believe that the way in which it was done cost America a piece of herself. Before ww2, America was seen as the shining beacon of hope and freedom in the world. A place where one could go to escape poverty, famine, religious persecution, and tyranny. After ww2, because of the things America did and her reasons for doing them, the world stopped looking at America as that beacon of hope and became fearful once again. People didn't refer to America as the world police until after ww2, and the behavior of Americas politicians in respect to how they handle foreign policy hasn't done much to set the world's mind at ease either. Put yourself in their shoes swop. If all you had to go on was what you saw America doing on cnn and the bbc wouldn't you be a bit scared too? America sullied herself and her reputation in ww2 because she used excessive force. The country of freedom and tolerance lost control in her bloodlust, and short of stepping down as THE global leader, i don't see any effort being made to repair that damage. You can't throw money at these countries and repair their infrastructure and expect it to solve the problem. No, i think America may have fared better had she stuck to conventional means of ending the war. At least then she'd have still been seen as a beacon of hope and tolerance. Goodnight gentlemen, i work tomorrow night and need to get some flight time in so I'll leave you with thanks for this spirited debate, I've thoroughly enjoyed it, and I'll check in on this thread and post my two cents as time allows. Till then, my friends

[/quote] Rifle, i'd like to point out that what you say doesn't always hold true. Granted, its the exception, but still worthy of mention. Im referring to a battle fought in the pacific in ww2. I dont recall exactly which battle it was, however, the marines were ordered to take a mountain. So the marines called in air support to soften up the target. Waves of hellcats and corsairs made repeated bombing and strafing runs and the ground troops took the mountain without firing a single shot. With regards to the use of air power at the end of the war, while i do highlight that as a major factor of what could have happened, i don't dismiss that a ground invasion would have been necessary, nor do i dismiss how violently bloody it would have been. That being said i still don't think it would have come to that even if we hadn't nuked them. In the course of my research, I've come to believe that hirohito would have surrendered to spare his people and their culture, rather than make a futile and bloody last stand given the odds that were stacked against him. Unlike hitler, hirohito wasn't crazy. Power hungry perhaps, but not crazy. Unlike hitler, hirohito didnt order things like the bataan death march, that behavior was decided by the soldiers and generals in the field, and were never official policy. Im getting slightly off topic here, but my point is that a better way was available at the end and truman could've taken that way but chose not to bc allowing the war to continue offered him the time to produce nukes and see what their damage really was. Thats just my opinion, and we may never really know, but everything I've studied about it seems to support my theory.[/quote]

No, to the contrary you are reinforcing my points. Point one: US Doctrine (based on the American belief that the individual has great value) is to expend immense amounts of ordnance to save American lives, as demonstrated in your example.

My second point is that DETERMINED infantry cannot be bombed or shelled into submission. Look at Okinawa, Tarawa, Peliu, Iwo Jima, or the multiple examples of failed massed fires to break determined infantry (Somme, Gettysburg, Waterloo, Vietnam, Etc.) How is that those Japanese in your example surrendered without fanatical resistance, when so many other fought to the last? They lost their determination. How does one sap the determination of the enemy? Same as in the European theater. The German infantry fought fanatically in Normandy, not just D-Day but the entire campaign. How is it that they surrendered in mass at Mons after fighting so hard in the bocage county? They were brought out in the open, and subjected to massed fired until their spirits were broken, their ammunition supplies were destroyed and not replaced as their convoys were shot up and captured, their bellies were empty, and they saw nothing would stop the armored advance or the non-stop bombing, strafing and shelling. They lost hope.

The Japanese would have fared no better once the battles of fixed position prevalent in the island hopping campaign turned to a war of maneuver on mainland Japan. Bypass resistance, using heavy armor, interrupt their supply lines, force defenders in strong positions into the open by capturing key terrain and political objectives, use air and artillery to continually hammer them and reduce their will to fight, mop up with infantry.

Defenders in fortified position, sitting on their supplies, will not bow to air or artillery, but put them on the move where they can't carry much in the way of supply, and then give them the same treatment of steel rain where they are not sheltered, and they soon change their political affiliations. Low quality infantry or good quality infantry exhausted by massed fires and lack of supplies melts before the advance. Mac had to assault the defended islands picked for the island hopping campaign, so we had to fight those battles the hard way, because Mac needed the airfields and therefore complete control of each successive island. But what of the islands bypassed? Those were taken easily once the supplies ran out and the defenders knew they had been left to rot, and were given a prolonged pounding.

Allow me to clarify the example i used. I wasn't disagreeing with you, rifle, and in the example i used no Japanese survived the assault. They were determined infantry. They just happened to make the mistake of getting between marines on the ground, and the determined marine air support who ttore them to pieces. In this instance i was attempting to illustrate how overwhelming airpower can not only win the ground battle for the infantry but can do it in such a way that the infantry merely has to walk up and go,"yep. It's ours."

HD...I do not hold your "negative view" of America post-WW2.....You talk to anyone in South Korea, Japan, Germany and a majority have a positive view of America and what they did...They view what America did as a "necessary evil"...America did the unprecedented thing of rebuilding conquered nations to the point of freedom for the people in those nations. Those conquered, rebuilt nations are totally free, democratic, economically growing.

I think America post-WW2 WAS the "beacon of hope" as you say is not the case. America had no "bloodlust"....they desired the war to be over while Germany and Japanese leadership as a whole desired for it to continue by not accepting unconditional surrender. I believe unconditional surrender was the only way in light of the extreme travesties of Holocost and how Japanese leadership treated their conquered nations during and before WW2. My wife happens to be Korean American and has mentioned stories from her grandparents of what the Japanese did to Korea: the slavery, inscription, torture, etc. was unmatched during the 20th century. My wife would also mention how supportive and "gung ho American" her parents and grandparents were after the Korean War. The stories of celebrating the American troops liberating them from the tyranny.

We forget....Japan and Germany were tyranical regimes....whose governments must be liberated and what is inspiring and the icing on the cake is to see America not do the "typical thing" by being hostile to the conquered nations but treat them with dignity and respect by building, supporting, encouraging, etc. the conquered nations of WW2 to be independent, free, democratic, economicaly viable with no limitations on their specific nations success. Even more so is the miracle to see these nations be some of the best friends America has ever had.

HD, I TOTALLY respect you.. I know we disagree but I still consider you a friend....just think about what I said...I know we both feel the pain of those who lost lives in war and to the bombs that dropped...its tragic and VERY sad. Sometimes only the "big picture" and the future is all we have. May we never have national governments in this world rise up like Japan and Germany during WW2 to pursue tyranny like they did during that time. That to me is the most tragic.

[WS]HD wrote: Allow me to clarify the example i used. I wasn't disagreeing with you, rifle, and in the example i used no Japanese survived the assault. They were determined infantry. They just happened to make the mistake of getting between marines on the ground, and the determined marine air support who ttore them to pieces. In this instance i was attempting to illustrate how overwhelming airpower can not only win the ground battle for the infantry but can do it in such a way that the infantry merely has to walk up and go,"yep. It's ours."

OK, I missed that before in the wording. I agree it is hard to put up much resistance when you are already dead. My favorite encounter with the Iraqis was always one of pure surprise, when we caught them sleeping with their weapons piled in the corner. 22-0 in those matches.